Political policy: the Sandanista revolution and democratization.

• Author: Prevost, Gary
• Position: Abstract

Abstract

The purpose of this article will be to explore the question of the development of democracy in Nicaragua with emphasis on the period from 1979 to the present. The primary focus will be on the role of democracy within the framework of the Sandinista revolution including the eleven years of FSLN state power and the last four years during which the Sandinistas have been the primary opposition party. It will be the primary contention of the paper that a profound democratization of Nicaragua began with the rise of the FSLN to power in 1979. It will also assert that while democratization has not been definitely reversed during the conservative rule of Chamorro and Aleman it has been weakened. The article's primary conclusions will run directly against those who argue that Nicaraguan process of democratization began only with the assumption of power of the UNO coalition in April 1990.

**********

Definitions of Democracy

A workable definition of democracy comes from my previous work coauthored with Harry Vanden. (1) Democracy derives from demos, the people, and kratos, the exercise of power. In its most basic sense it is as Abraham Lincoln said, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Unlike other types of government, it claims to allow the people themselves to rule, to make the decisions that govern their lives. The people are to decide their own destiny through their participation in the political process. There is definitely not unanimity of opinion on exactly which forms of political participation are essential for democracy or precisely which political institutions best allow the people to have a say in the governmental process. There are several visions of democracy widely touted in today's world. In the eyes of some, the only valid view is that form of representative democracy practiced in Western nations.

A concise statement of this perspective is provided in the opening editorial "Why the Journal of Democracy" by Larry Diamond and Marc Plattner. (2) This definition includes peaceful competition for all effective positions in government through elections, independent political participation, and a high level of civil and political liberty. This definition has been widely accepted by supporters of capitalism but, socialists have long been critical of Western-style representative democracy. Lenin argued that the essence of "bourgeois" parliamentarianism was "to decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament." (3) Lenin and many Marxists believed that formal parliamentary institutions must be transformed into working bodiesBlike Marx's original vision of the Paris Commune of 1871 or the original local soviets in 1917Bthat allowed the people to have a direct say in the making of policy.

As we examine the meaning of democracy it is possible to find some similarities in the ways in which democracy is conceived and practiced in socialist and capitalist states. Similarities can be found in the concepts of democracy shared by Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx. Both Jefferson and Marx trusted the people and thought they would rule wisely and justly under the right conditions. Although their modern day disciples have often found themselves in opposition, Marx and Jefferson shared a similar view of human nature and democracy. Like French Thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau both men saw an inherent goodness in all human beings. This led them to place their faith in the people and their inherent ability to control their affairs. Marx and Jefferson were unrelenting opponents of monarchy and aristocracy. Jefferson accepted representative government only reluctantly and only for large political units.(4) Marx would share this ambivalence and favor the creation of institutions of direct democracy.

However, it is important to recognize theorists of democracy in both the capitalist and socialist camps tended to be marginalized by both theory and practice over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the United States the ideas of Jefferson were challenged by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison who believed that the people should be represented by those who understood the true needs of the republic. John Adams wanted forms of government that stressed avoiding the excesses of pure or direct democracy. The constitutional structure adopted by the United States set in motion an emphasis on indirect forms of democracy and a de-emphasis on popular participation. Over time this has evolved in the Western countries into a system where there is less and less popular participation. In the current version of Hamilton's thinking George Will argued that "people are not supposed to govern, they are not supposed to decide issues. They are supposed to decide who will decide." (5) The idea that only a few should govern in the United States has been played out in practice. Donald Barrett and James Steele note how the concentration of wealth and power has derailed American democracy. They observe that the "wage and salary structure of American business is pushing the nation to a two class society." (6) Such divisions, combined with the pervasive influence of money in political campaigns, have greatly undermined the practice of democracy in the land of Jefferson.

However, the idea of a small group deciding for the many is not limited to revisionist theorists of Western democracy. The concept also was nurtured and practiced within the socialist camp. Lenin's conception of the vanguard party as that entity that best understands the needs of the majority and it therefore is most competent to implement policy that benefits it. According to Lenin, the vanguard party was to lead the people in the socialist revolution and guide the state while the new society was being constructed. But Lenin's ideas very much flowed from the authoritarian Russian political culture that produced his thought. There was little in Russia to instill the libertarian values that foster democracy. Rather they added to the authoritarian influences that imprinted the development of Marxism. The historic conditions in which the first experiment in socialist rule developed influenced not only Soviet Marxism but the way in which socialist thought and praxis developed elsewhere.

The first days of the Russian revolution involved a bold testing of democracy. Workers councils or Soviets took control of neighborhoods and factories much the same way the people had formed communes in Paris during the early part of the revolution in 1792 and the Paris Commune of 1871. Democracy was alive and direct in early Soviet Russia but fears of counter-revolution and foreign intervention dampened the democratic initiative. However, Lenin held out hope that democracy could be reinstated once the revolution was no longer seriously threatened. At one point Lenin stated "the victory of socialism is impossible without the realization of democracy." (7) But at the same time the structure and vanguard role of the party were fundamental for Lenin. Ironically, Lenin's concept of democratic centralism was designed to democratize the functioning of the party, but in reality it did not permit full discussion of issues nor widespread contact between the party and the wider society. Near the end of his life in 1924 Lenin began to have doubts about the growing bureaucratization of Soviet socialism, but his successor Joseph Stalin had no such fears. Once Stalin consolidated his power the democratic thrust of Soviet socialism was gone. Popular democracy was discouraged and dissent was not tolerated on the grounds that bourgeois influence had to be resisted. As Marxist theory and practice developed in the Soviet Union and those areas of the world that were modeled after it, its democratic and participatory dimensions were generally neglected in deference to the interests of the party leadership. By the middle of the 20th century in both the West and the East there had developed both political practice and political theory that claimed to be the essence of democracy, but in reality both had established political processes built around minority rule.

The Nicaragua Case

Despite the poverty of democratic examples in both the capitalist west and the socialist east, Nicaragua had set about the process of constructing real democracy within a socialist state following the defeat of the Somoza dictatorship in 1979. Nicaragua had been formally a republic for more than a century, but she had seen very little in the way of real democracy. Most of Nicaraguan political history consisted of the passing of power between the Conservatives and Liberals through elections in which only a small percentage of the population was permitted to participate. Nicaragua's closet brush with constitutional rule may have occurred during the increasingly dictatorial reign of Jose Santos Zelaya (1893-1909). But any possibility that Zelaya's rule may have evolved into constitutional or democratic government was ended when the Conservatives seized power by force with U.S. support in 1909. Conservative administrations that followed can hardly be called democratic as they governed largely through money and arms from Washington. Following the struggle of Sandino between 1926 and 1933, the Somoza dynasty was imposed on Nicaragua for the next forty-five years. While the Somozas ruled Nicaragua like a family business, numerous elections were held (seven between 1936 and 1974). The political opposition dutifully attempted to use them to remove the Somozas, but they failed totally because the elections were openly fraudulent or rigged in favor of the Somoza family's wishes. Any political forces that challenged the established political processes were forcibly repressed by the National Guard, Somoza's private army. The entire apparatus of the governmentBlegislature, courts, and public administrationBexisted to serve the needs of the Somozas. (8)

In...